On Mar 12, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Personally, I could see a case for removing all authoring
> conformance requirements from all of our drafts. Authoring
> conformance requirements cause a disproportionate amount of
> controversy in the group, while not having nearly as much effect on
> what authors can do as implementation conformance requirements.
I decided to check my hypothesis against reality, in the form of our
list of open issues.
Document conformance issues: 12 total
ISSUE-4, ISSUE-27, ISSUE-30, ISSUE-31,ISSUE-32,
ISSUE-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-88, ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91,
ISSUE-99, ISSUE-102
Implementation conformance issues (generally also affect document
conformance): 9 total
ISSUE-9, ISSUE-74, ISSUE-82, ISSUE-86, ISSUE-93
ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSUE-97, ISSUE-100
Editoral issues (no material affect on either document or
implementation conformance): 10 total
ISSUE-56, ISSUE-66, ISSUE-78, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-89
ISSUE-92, ISSUE-94, ISSUE-101, ISSUE-103, ISSUE-104
Not sure:
ISSUE-41
Probably the most striking thing here is how many of our issues are
purely editorial (i.e. it appears they would not materially affect the
conformance requirements for either producers or consumers of HTML).
Regards,
Maciej